This Forum article explains how many of today’s calamities—specifically, climate change, biodiversity loss, and COVID-19—are the result of humanity’s ongoing relationship to wildness. For millennia, humans have pushed unpredictability and discomfort out of their immediate surroundings in search of security and convenience. They have been remarkably successful. Today, many people, but especially the affluent, rarely encounter wild animals, suffer exposure to the elements, or even have to tolerate the capriciousness of other people. But wildness is akin to energy: it cannot be created or destroyed. As people craft havens of stability, they do not eradicate wildness but shove it into the lives of the less fortunate and onto the global level. These days, marginalized people face profound vulnerability, and key biophysical and social systems on Earth are spiraling out of control. This article demonstrates the dynamics of global wildness. It shows how trying to banish wildness from one’s surroundings leads directly to climate change, mass extinction, and COVID-19. It ends by advancing a strategy of rewilding as a way to address these challenges. It suggests that opening to greater uncertainty and a modicum of discomfort—both individually and collectively—can relieve some of the pressure generating global wildness and offer an ethically appropriate orientation for this moment of planetary intensification.

Mitigation and adaptation represent the two main ways the world is responding to climate change. However, a third response is being practiced by the most vulnerable: widespread suffering. No matter how much we mitigate or adapt to climate change, pervasive suffering is inevitable. In fact, it is already being experienced throughout the world. This article reports on interviews conducted with subsistence farmers living on the frontlines of climate change in northern India in the spring of 2013. It relates the ways in which sustained drought and then punishing rains wreaked hardship on the farmers, and the ways farmers endured such challenges. By relating farmers' tales and describing how this experience personally influenced the researcher, the article offers and invites reflection on the many meanings of climate suffering.

This article explores a paradox at the heart of climate bandwagoning. Numerous actors have hitched their efforts to climate policy formation in an effort either to advance their own interests or genuinely contribute to addressing this most urgent global dilemma or both. At the same time, the large number of stakeholders complicates climate negotiations as exceeding numbers of actors bring related but tangential issues into discussions and demand to be heard. The international community is thus faced with an almost existential situation: to address climate change in an effective manner requires nearly everyone in the room (regime bandwagoning); with everyone in the room, however, less is accomplished (regime sclerosis). This article explains such a paradox by stepping back from the cases presented in this special issue, and bringing into high relief the lineaments of regime congestion as they manifest in global climate affairs, and outlining the promises and perils involved.

Over the past few years, environmental studies has been pushed to the sidelines of political discourse as environmental challenges have been overshadowed in world affairs by issues of terrorism, national security and global economic stability. However, a new Democratic Congress in the US and anticipation of a new US president, intensifying global concern about climate change and forward-looking environmental initiatives at the municipal and regional levels the world-over suggest that we may be entering a new era of environmental concern. How should environmental scholars position themselves in the emerging political landscape? This essay argues that, while critical environmental scholarship often occupies the margins of disciplinary space, it is more relevant now than ever before. The essay explains why and how critical environmental studies can adopt the mantle of genuinely effective scholarly engagement.

This article provides a first-hand account of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) and an analysis of how to advance environmentalist concerns in the post-Jo'burg era. It reviews some of the achievements and disappointments of the Summit and describes significant changes in global environmental affairs that the WSSD was unable fully to appreciate and which, therefore, must be addressed in the post-Jo'burg world. One change is a switch in emphasis in the North and South in terms of sustainable development. For too long we've been told that the North is concerned with the environment while the South is focused on development. At the WSSD it became clear, however, that this is no longer the case. Many in the North now claim a development focus although, to be sure, through the more fundamental goal of economic globalization. Concomitantly, many in the South voice a commitment to environmental sustainability as a way to reduce poverty. A second change has to do with the power of environmentalism. After enjoying much strength, concern for the environment is flagging throughout much of the world as key states find themselves distracted by geo-political concerns in the aftermath of the September 11 th attacks. Both changes indicate the need to rethink environmentalist strategies in a post-Jo'burg era. The article offers several suggestions including abandoning sustainable development as a policy objective (although keeping it as a conceptual framework) and resuscitating the older, more narrow and arguably less complicated goals of environmental protection.

Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) engage in a host of activities to influence world political affairs. They lobby states, pressure economic actors and alter cultural frames to shape widespread thought and behavior. Most scholars of international relations ignore the cultural dimension of NGO work either because it seemingly lacks clear political significance or because alterations in cultural life are difficult to gauge. In this article I demonstrate that, while less direct and obvious, NGO cultural challenges may have, ironically, more political relevance than conventional forms of activism and engagement. Additionally, I show that, notwithstanding formidable methodological challenges, there are ways to measure shifts in broad ideational frameworks—even across borders—and scholars can adopt these in productive ways. I develop both these points through a study of environmental NGOs. The article's findings, however, can be generalized beyond environmental organizations to all types of NGOs.